TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18-19 dated 14.08.2018 by which the adjudicating authority has held as follows:- "ORDER a) I confirm die demand of service tax raised vide show cause notice de 29-3-2017 to the extent of Rs 42,16,001-(Rupees Forty two lacs sixteen thousand and one only) in terms of Sec 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and order the noticee to pay the same forthwith 1 also confirm the demand of service tax raised vide periodic show cause notice dt 1-3-2018 to the extent of Rs 2381/- (Rupees Two thousand three hundred and eighty one only) in terms of Sec 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and order the notice to pay the same forthwith. b) I order the noticee M/s Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd to pay forthwith the interest u/s 75 of the Finance Act 1994 on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and after July 2012 they were providing taxable services. The show cause notice alleged that the assessee on behalf of overseas clients facilitated in the process of transportation of consignment from taxable territory to final destination. They engaged freight forwarder/transporter as per their requirements, who provided the services of ocean freight, Customs clearance, THC, handling etc. For these services they raised invoices on the assessee. It is alleged that while doing so, the respondent/assessee charged huge mark-up i.e. the difference between the value of the services received by the service provider and charged by the respondent from their clients abroad. This mark-up being in nature of commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.2 I find that the issue involved in the matter is no longer res integra and has been covered by the Board circular in favour of the respondent. In the case of BVC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 709-CESTAT New Delhi], the following has been observed:- "6. We have heard both sides and gone through the material available on record. It may be mentioned that in the case of Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has observed that, in the shipping line there is possibility of trading in space or slots on vessels. It cannot be stated that such trading was figment and only freight was transacted. The Tribunal further observed that: "12. The appellant takes responsibility for safety of goods and issues a document o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 will not address these independent principal-to-principal transactions of the appellant and, with the space so purchased being allocable only by the appellant, the shipping line fails in description as client whose services are promoted or marketed." From the record, it also appears that the assessee-Appellants were never appointed by the airlines as "Commission Agent". They have purchased the space in bulk and paid to airlines if the space is vacant, and have also suffered the loss. When the assessee-Appellants are suffering with the transaction loss, then certainly they are not the agent. 7. Further, the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) vide Circular No. 197/7/2016-ST dated 12.08.2016 has clarified that: "2.2 The freight f....